on 1/21/03 5:31 PM, Diane Ross at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 1/21/03 10:09 AM, "Norman W. Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ah... I was hoping that sorting by company, then by name, would retain the >> sort order of the company within name if there was no name. But what I hear >> you saying is that by sorting on name (i.e. clicking the name column) wipes >> out any previous sort operation entirely. Too bad. >> >> So yes... Sub sorting (either explicit or implicit) would seem to me to be a >> GoodThing�. > > If you assign a category for each company then you can find by category and > they will be sorted also by name.
With a nearly one-to-one correspondence between the number of contacts and the number of companies, this would be impractical in this case. And it still doesn't address the basic need, which is to appropriately sort contacts when either there is no company information -or- there is no name information associated with a contact. The current default (as I understood from Paul's earlier missive) of sorting by creation order when such fields are empty would almost never be useful, IMHO. Open nets... -- Norman Ferguson | Dir. of Technology Services | Tekgnosys Member, Apple Consultants Network | Microsoft Certified Professional Office: 540-387-4422 | Cell: 540-819-4014 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1917 Maylin Drive; Suite 103 | Salem, VA 24153 -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
